Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ^[SSTflyer] 14:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbos App

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was created as advertising by the developer of a hoax product called the "Shabbos App". It caused a small amount of controversy for a short period of time, but all of that controversy was predicated on there actually being such a thing as the "Shabbos App". There never was. The official website of the "app" is gone. This was all a clever trick. Wikipedia is not to be used in this way, and the momentary controversy caused by the creator of the hoax is hardly notable. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This vote has a condition: people, stop protesting that you can't call it a hoax. The so-called 'app' was based upon problems in Jewish Law that don't exist, problems in Jewish Law that cannot be solved, and technology "solutions" that would have permanently burned out a phone. There is no evidence that it ever existed. It was and remains a bad joke. Worthy of a Wikipedia entry on that basis, only. Boyblackhat (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That rationale falls under WP:OR. Just because it would burn out people's phone, it doesnt mean it was a hoax. You might not believe it ever existed, and it might not have, but unless you find a WP:RS stating it as a fact, it has to be written on WP as if it was real and never released. - Galatz ^Talk 13:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hoaxes (or even vaporware) can be notable, and this one is, as can be seen by the worldwide significant coverage in reliable sources extensively cited in the article. In "Category: Hoaxes" and its various subcategories, you can see that we have hundreds of articles about hoaxes, including over 70 articles about internet hoaxes. This topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that we have 55 articles in "Category:Vaporware". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the logic is very flawed as to the rationale to delete. No matter what the original reason was to create, it does not anywhere resemble the original listing and it does not read as an advertisement, so that logic is flawed. Secondly, regardless of it being a hoax, it is notable. It was news worthy and covered by many RS over a long period of time. It meets the criteria for notable. - Galatz ^Talk 22:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Galatz, I would also like to clarify that Lisa is using the same reason from the 2nd nomination which resulted in a keep. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but at the time of the second nomination, the thing still at least had a website. There was room to argue that there was something there. And even so, the fact that the page was created by the "developer" of the "app" shouldn't be allowed to stand. It sets a bad precedent. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 08:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. See below. Notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate its notability; many of those sources also acknowledge the controversy surrounding its status as a "hoax" product. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because this article is about a hoax doesn't mean it's not notable. Significant coverage in news sources like The Times of Israel prove that the subject of this page meets WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As other has pointed out, being a hoax isn't a reason to delete an article. However, there aren't any reliable sources saying it was a hoax, so that's original research. The only thing on the page is one guy speculating it might be a hoax. This is certainly not confirmed. FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.